Joyce Murray

[FIFA World Cup, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2010 Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup in South Africa June 11 to July 11.

Call it soccer, football or footie, this game is the most popular sport in the world and one of the most popular in Canada. The FIFA World Cup is the most widely watched sporting event in the world. Seven hundred and fifteen million people watched the tournament in 2006.

Sadly our Canadian team did not qualify for 2010, so young players, get ready for 2014. It will be Canada's turn. Instead I will cheer this year for my country of birth, South Africa, the first African nation to ever host the World Cup.

The World Cup is a celebration of athletic participation and excellence and, most important, it displays the world's cultural diversity. Through sport, our young people grow healthier, our communities grow stronger and the nations of the world grow closer.

As the Liberal critic for amateur sport, I invite parliamentarians to join me in wishing all the competing teams and players in South Africa the very best of luck.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 7th, 2010]

With respect to sport funding in Canada: (a) what programs and services were eliminated or reduced as a result of cutting Sport Canada’s direct funding allotment from $197,318,000 to $179,812,000, and what was the rationale for the cut; (b) why was Sport Canada not included as a line item before 2008-2009; (c) when will the internal audit of Sport Canada be made publicly available; (d) what is the year-by-year summary, from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, of Sport Canada’s total funding allocation, as well as the total funding allocations for its funding programs, the (i) Athlete Assistance Program, (ii) Sport Support Program, (iii) Games Hosting Program; (e) what programs and services were eliminated or reduced as a result of cutting Sport Canada’s Hosting Program from $43,992,404 to $16,315,575, and what is the rationale for the cut; (f) how much of the Hosting Program funding flowed to Olympic or Paralympic related activities; (g) what is the cost breakdown, from 2005 to 2010, of the Hosting Program’s funding contributions to specific events and organizations, and on what dates were these contributions made; (h) have the recommendations of Acting Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive, Robert Lalande, concerning the Hosting Program been implemented, (i) why or why not, (ii) when were they implemented, (iii) has there been an assessment of these changes and what is the outcome; (i) is the funding to the Canadian Paralympic Committee, Special Olympics and ParticipACTION announced in Budget 2010 additional to the funding these organizations receive from Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program, or is this the total allocation these multi-sport organizations can expect to receive; (j) how much money was received by the Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic Committee, Special Olympics and ParticipACTION each year since 2005; (k) what is the rationale for cutting ParticipACTION’s funding from $3,500,000 to $3,000,000; (l) what is the year-by-year cost breakdown of the funds that have been allocated since 2005 to the Own the Podium program, is there an audit of what these funds have been spent on and, if so, where is it available, which entities received funds associated with this program, what is the funding commitment for this program in the future, when will this funding expire, how much of this funding will be spent on winter sports, how much of this funding will be spent on summer sports, and which organization will deliver and administer the Own the Podium funding; (m) how much money has the government spent and how much is it projected to spend on the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, on which dates, to which entities and for what purposes, including costs associated with travel, hospitality and pavilions; (n) how much money has the government spent and how much is it projected to spend on the 2011 Pan American Games in Guadalajara, on which dates, to which entities and for what purposes, including costs associated with travel, hospitality and pavilions; and (o) how much money has the government spent and how much is it projected to spend on the 2015 Pan American Games in Toronto, on which dates, to which entities and for what purposes, including costs associated with travel, hospitality and pavilions?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 7th, 2010]

With respect to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games: (a) for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, how much money has the federal government allocated to the Games, to which entities, on which dates, for what purposes, and what is the total amount; (b) how much money in total was spent on the Canada Pavilion; (c) which companies were invited to bid on the Canada Pavilion; (d) what is the cost breakdown of the Canada Pavilion with respect to construction, hospitality, wages, security and other categories of costs; (e) who adjudicated the bids related to Canada Pavilion contract proposals and on what criteria was the adjudication based; (f) what requests for proposals, including MERX codes, did the government put forward related to the Games; (g) in total, how much money was allocated for promoting bilingualism and French translation, on what dates were these funds distributed, to which entities and for what purposes; (h) what was the government’s plan to address the H1N1 influenza pandemic before and during the Games, how much money was allocated for this plan, to which entities was it allocated and for what purpose; (i) what was the government’s plan to address human and sex trafficking during the Games, how much was spent on this plan, which entities received funds, on which dates and for what purposes; (j) how much money did the government spend on including aboriginal communities in the Games and for what initiatives; (k) how much money was allocated from Sport Canada for the Games, on which dates and for what purposes; and (l) what costs, including hospitality, accommodation, travel and other categories of costs, were incurred by the federal government to support the participation of the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the Games, how many staff members were sent from the Prime Minister’s Office, how many rooms did the Prime Minister, Ministers and their staff require, at what cost, at which hotels and for what dates?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do have comments on those points.

The member points out one of five tax increases, and that is to the travelling consumer, at a time when our corporate taxes are far lower than our neighbours to the south. This is the reason the Liberal Party is committed to not do further tax cuts for corporations until such time as we do not have to borrow money.

While the government is adding taxes to workers through payroll tax increases, it is planning to cut the taxes of corporations, which I support when we can afford it. However, I do not support doing that with borrowed money, digging future generations further into debt. This debt will have to be repaid at a time when it will be more difficult than ever, with fewer people in the workforce and other demographic pressures that we will face as Canadian governments.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal Party will vote against the bill.

In a way I find it interesting to be scolded by the member of the NDP on this issue. He talked about an end to Conservative Party and the Prime Minister's governing seat. That party, in December 2005, undermined its policies, which it had brought to the fore with the Liberal Party of the day, by ensuring that the government fell before Kelowna and before many of the important policies the Liberal Party was bringing forward in its upcoming budget.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-9.

I will start by talking about a visitor who came to Parliament a few weeks ago, Dr. Jane Goodall, and her remarks. Dr. Goodall is a world renowned primatologist and also a leader in thinking about the kind of world we want for the future. In her remarks she said that some say we inherit the earth and the world from our parents and some say we borrow it from our children. Dr. Goodall is concerned that we are stealing from the next generation because borrowing with no plans to repay is in fact stealing. I share her view that it is time we get together and start to pay back to ensure we create a better world for future generations.

Bill C-9 raises questions for me on issues such as the economy, the environment and democracy and whether we are stealing from future generations in the provisions contained in the budget implementation bill. There certainly is stealth in the bill and I will talk about that in my section on democracy. Major changes are hidden in it in such a way that we are unable to properly debate them. They should be in separate legislation.

Let me start my comments with the economy. This is another budget that borrows significant funds and the funds will need to be repaid in the future. This means the government is borrowing from the future. Are there proper plans for repaying these funds, which would indicate that the government is borrowing and not stealing?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised questions about the competency of the Conservative government in terms of its financial projects and plans, as he has done repeatedly over the past several years. He has publicly stated that Bill C-9 falls short in its assertion that the books will be balanced in five years. He estimates that the government's budget predictions are inaccurate and off by about $10 billion. Mr. Page said that the government's budgetary assumptions were “not a prudent basis for fiscal planning”. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is bringing to light the fact that the government has failed to build in a cushion for the unexpected and failed to plan for tomorrow.

More than being concerned about weakness in the planning, I have huge concerns about the government's priorities. As was brought to light in the budget implementation bill, ideological cuts have been made to women's groups, to poverty alleviation groups and to very important education groups. What we see as the government's priority is its millions of dollars, and some assessments say over $100 million, in self-serving advertising paid by the taxpayer to promote the government's fiscal management. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is a more neutral commentator on plans and budgets.

There are five new tax increases in the budget. When I pointed this out to my constituents, they were very surprised. The Conservatives' expensive advertising campaign by no means suggests transparency with respect to these new tax increases, including $15 billion in payroll taxes, which are counterproductive and aggressive.

Is this budget stealing from the future or are we investing in the future? I am concerned about the funds that are being spent on the upcoming international meetings. Less than six months before these meetings, the venue for the G20 was changed. It is going to cost over $1 billion for a few days of meetings.

I know others have compared the spending for the summits with the spending on the Olympic Games, but it is not only 17 days of Olympic Games. There are also nine days of Paralympic Games, with heads of state and VIP to be secured and protected. To spend over $1 billion on these few days of meetings at a time when budgets are being cut for very important social issues and other issues is a huge mismanagement of public funds.

With respect to the environment, this budget continues the inaction on climate. Unfortunately, there are cuts to the eco-energy home retrofit program that brought homeowners and families into reducing the footprint of their households. There are cuts to climate science. Gordon McBean, the chair of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, sums up the effect of budget 2010 on climate change research as follows:

Budget 2010 is basically the nightmare scenario for scientists across the country – our community is gutted.

Are we borrowing from our future generations or are we stealing from them? That is really the question that came to mind as I looked at the provisions in the budget. It weakens the federal oversight of the environment. It removes from the environment department the power to assess environmental projects and moves it into other organizations that have worse records in terms of public participation. It gives the minister power which he or she should not have, because ministers are subject to lobbying.

On the Gulf of Mexico oil leak, we see the ministers deferring to other regulatory bodies and not taking responsibility for answering whether we have strong enough regulations. They are being very evasive on the questions on oil tankers in the Pacific north coast, giving us a range of different answers designed to confuse. It is clear the government is paving the way for that super tanker on our vulnerable Pacific north coast, which we should never allow.

Last, I wanted to touch on democracy. I know some of the other speakers have been eloquent on the issue of combining a lot of different, non-linked policy and legislative changes in an omnibus bill. The Prime Minister commented on this a number of years ago. In 1994 he asked for a ruling to split a budget implementation bill, saying that it was becoming standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus legislation following every budget under what might be called the kitchen sink approach. He described that as improper and said it should be ruled out of order. That was referring to a bill of 20 pages.

What the Prime Minister is putting in front of the House is 900 pages. It is a far larger kitchen sink with far more in it. The hypocrisy is unfortunate. Democracy is impacted when Parliament does not have the opportunity to debate substantive changes around Canada Post, AECL and environmental assessment. This should be 14 different bills according to senior members of the Senate.

This is an abuse. Unfortunately, it is a corruption of Parliament. It brings me back to my question. Are we stealing from future generations? When we undermine democracy, we undermine the role of Parliament. I do not support Bill C-9. It is a very poor example of statespersonship. It is an unfortunate undermining of the Canadian confidence, both economically and environmentally. The government's priority should be to protect and strengthen our democracy.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, is the minister aware that all the coastal first nations are standing together against this potential tanker traffic on the Pacific north coast that could do immeasurable damage to our ecosystems in north coast British Columbia--

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, the minister is just compounding the confusion caused by all the inaccurate answers he has given to these questions previously.

I would like to know whether this minister believes that the views of first nations who live along the pipeline route leading to Kitimat and the coastal route of the oil tankers that will take oil to customers in the east are important.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, on May 14, 2010, in question period, the minister responded to a question regarding tanker traffic off the west coast, stating:

[T]here is a tanker exclusion zone in British Columbia. No oil tankers are allowed in the inside passage. That is the way it is, and it will not change.

Is the minister suggesting, through that comment, that the 1988 tanker exclusion zone on the outside waters west of Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island includes and is the same as the moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the inside waters east of the islands? In other words, it is the ban brought about by a Liberal government in 1972.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, does the Conservative government support the moratorium on offshore drilling and the 1972 Trudeau oil tanker ban on B.C. coast inland waters?